Niddah

MISHNAH. FORMERLY IT WAS RULED: A WOMAN WHO ABIDES IN CLEAN BLOOD  MAY POUR OUT  WATER  FOR [WASHING OF] THE PASCHAL LAMB.  SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS.  THIS ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: EVEN AS ONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS. GEMARA. 'SHE MAY POUR OUT' only, but may not touch it.  It is thus evident  that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness  are treated as holy. But then read the final clause: SUBSEQUENTLY THEY CHANGED THEIR VIEW: IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD SHE IS LIKE ONE WHO CAME IN CONTACT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS SUBJECT TO CORPSE UNCLEANNESS. Thus only  IN RESPECT OF CONSECRATED FOOD but not in respect of unconsecrated food.  It is thus evident, is it not, that unconsecrated foodstuffs prepared in conditions of holiness  are not treated as holy? — Who is the author of our Mishnah?  It is Abba Saul; for it was taught: Abba Saul ruled, A tebul yom is unclean in the first grade in respect of consecrated food to cause two further grades of uncleanness  and one grade of disqualification. MISHNAH. BUT THEY  AGREE THAT SHE  MAY EAT  SECOND TITHE; SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER  DOUGH-OFFERING,  BRING IT NEAR  TO THE DOUGH  AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH;  AND THAT IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE OR OF THE BLOOD OF HER PURIFICATION  FELL ON A LOAF OF TERUMAH THE LATTER REMAINS CLEAN. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE REQUIRES IMMERSION AT THE END [OF HER DAYS OF PURIFICATION],  AND BETH HILLEL RULED: SHE REQUIRES NO IMMERSION AT THE END. GEMARA. Because  a Master ruled: If a person performed immersion and came up [from his bathing] he may  eat of second tithe. SHE MAY SET ASIDE HER DOUGH-OFFERING. For unconsecrated dough that is tebel  in respect of the dough-offering  is not treated like the dough-offering. BRING IT NEAR. Because a Master stated: It is a religious duty to set aside the offering from dough that is in close proximity to that for which it is set aside. AND DESIGNATE IT AS SUCH. Since it might have been presumed that this should be forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of her touching the dough  from the outside,  we were informed [that this is permitted]. AND IF ANY OF HER SPITTLE … FELL. For we have learnt: The liquid [issues] of a tebul yom  are like the liquids that he touches, neither of them conveying uncleanness. The exception is the liquid issue of a zab  which is a father of uncleanness. BETH SHAMMAI. What is the point at issue between them?  — R. Kattina replied: The point at issue between them is the necessity for immersion  at the end of a long day. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN OBSERVED A DISCHARGE ON THE ELEVENTH DAY  AND PERFORMED IMMERSION IN THE EVENING AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY  CONVEY UNCLEANNESS  TO COUCH AND SEAT  AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO A SACRIFICE,